Tuesday, 5 March 2013


One of the most liberating and eye-opening revelations I ever had was stumbling across the Anonymous Conservative blog, because it provides scientific evidence for something we’ve all suspected but were afraid to articulate: liberalism is literally a mental disorder. Once you junk the premise that feminists, anti-racists, men’s rights activists, and other leftists are well-meaning but misguided, and realize that they’re deranged, self-destructive lunatics, a lot of things become easier to explain.

Feminism, for example, is nothing but intellectualized psychosis.

How many times have you heard a feminist make the following argument on (or in response to) the manosphere:
“You’re all a bunch of sexist pigs who treat women like sex objects. Women are people, they’re not playthings for your amusement.”
I don’t need to cite a specific instance; throw a dart at a manosphere blog and you’ll hit upon someone, somewhere saying something like this. The thing about this line is that it’s total projection.

Let me explain.

A while back, Roosh posted a photo collage comparing women from the 1960′s to women today. This comment near the end sums up the objections to his article:
"There are just as many ugly women as well as men now as there were in the 60′s. You can not honestly believe every woman was from planet babe back then. Its pretty obvious that the author of this found the absolute best pictures of women from the 60′s and the worst from the present day. You have to keep in mind as well that there are waaay more recent pictures easily accessible now partially due to the internet. You’re going to find a lot of 'ugly' women, but you’ll also be able to find just as many 'hot' ones...though the way ive seen people post comments on here im sure no mortal woman could live up to the standards held by some of you men. to everyone moaning about how they wish they had a time machine i strongly encourage you to get the fuck over it because its not going to happen.. even if it did you would probably still be disappointed. The world has always sucked. Only a fool would romanticize the past like this."
But here’s the thing: Roosh’s post was not solely about looks. Sure, obesity has played a role in uglifying the average girl, but half of the modern women pictured were skinny or average weight. All else being equal, there’s probably little difference between today’s girls and the girls of yesteryear purely on the basis of physical attractiveness.

The biggest difference between women of today and the sixties isn’t in looks, it’s in attitude.

The women in the 1960′s pictures are smiling and joyful. They dress stylishly. They radiate confidence and playfulness. They look at ease in their own skin. Basically, they’re normal, well-adjusted, feminine women.

The modern women look mentally off. They’ve deliberately ruined their looks with stupid hipster tattoos, ugly Skrillex haircuts, and body piercings. They wear clothes that are either too tight to contain their jiggling blubber rolls, or otherwise make them look like homeless crack whores. They drink themselves into blackout puking. While they show more skin then the sixties gals, they wield their sex appeal like a mallet, showing not confidence but a weird mix of hostility and desperation. “I have TITS! LOOK AT ME!”

They’re the exact opposite of how women should be: insecure, aggressive and cunty.

One of my guilty pleasures is erotica and glamour photography from the 50′s and 60′s. A month ago, I came across a site featuring scans of vintage girlie magazines. Looking at the nudes on the site, I got the same impression I got from the photos in Roosh’s post; while there’s little difference between the women there and modern porn stars/models on a purely physical basis, the girlies beat out modern sluts purely on their feminine vibe. They’re happy and playful, exuding sexiness without coming off as slutty or trashy.

Now look at porn stars on YouPorn or Spankwire. Almost all of them look angry and hostile; there’s no life in their eyes, no mirth in their actions. Even if it weren’t for their whore makeup and silicone breasts, they’d still come off as fake and phony. They need artificial implants to even attempt to capture the flirty and feminine nature of Bettie Page, June Wilkinson and the glamour girls of yesteryear: and even then, they can’t do it.

Finally, I got a lot of heat from feminists last summer when I wrote a post praising Australian hurdler Michelle Jenneke for her confident, feminine demeanor. Dozens of manboobs and feminasties called me a “douchebag” or “creepy” for reducing women to sex objects, even though I explicitly pointed out that Jenneke wasn’t particularly attractive—she’s cute yes, but not stunningly so—nor her “sexy” dancing all that sexy. What makes her attractive isn’t her looks alone, it’s her aura, her attitude. In a follow-up post, I also talked about a couple of homely Hoosier ladies I met in Chicago who wowed me with their charm and girliness.

I praise women for being confident and fun to be around, and I’m the one who’s reducing women to sex objects?

The truth is that it is feminists who view women solely as sex objects. Mindless consumers whose only purpose in life is to punch numbers into a computer for a meager paycheck or rub their asses all over your crotch like they’re trying to send you to the hospital. Confused androgynes who pop antidepressants to keep from slitting their wrists in the bathtub. Men with vaginas.

In their revolt against the natural order, feminists have turned women into slabs of meat.

No comments:

Post a Comment